Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
Various explanations are given for the overall composition of the first five books of the old Testament. For example, the Documentary Hypothesis states the five books are a compilation of four sources: Jahwist (J), Elohist (E), Deuteronomist (D), and Priestly (P). The latest, the Deuteronomist may have developed during the reforms instituted by Josiah or possibly it was written even later in response to the exile.
Regardless of which explanation is best, the Vorlage of Deuteronomy’s identification of "God" includes three different words: el, ĕlôha, and ĕlōhîm. el and ĕlôha are singular; ĕlōhîm is plural.
Here are two passages where two different words are used together:
el and ĕlōhîm
For the LORD your God, ĕlōhîm is God, ĕlōhîm of gods, ĕlōhîm is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, el a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward (Deuteronomy 10:17 KJV)
ĕlôha and ĕlōhîm
They sacrificed unto devils, not to God, ĕlôha to gods, ĕlōhîm whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not. (Deuteronomy 32:17)
Furthermore, Deuteronomy has the portion of the Shema which states God, ĕlōhîm is one:
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God ĕlōhîm is one LORD. 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God ĕlōhîm with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (Deuteronomy 6)
If Deuteronomy is written during a time of reform, or after the exile, one expects to find a text using one word to identify one God. Using three different terms to describe God is something which introduces a measure of ambiguity. This unnecessary and intentional aspect of Deuteronomy is more evident when compared with the books describing the history of this time. Neither el or ĕlôha is used in First or Second Kings. In other words, the history before, during and after Josiah’s reform is described using only ĕlōhîm, as one would expect if the writer intended to convey one God.
First and Second Chronicles, both written after the exile follow Kings by using ĕlōhîm and never el. There is one instance where ĕlôha is used to identify a false god (cf. 2 Chronicles 32:15).
Obviously it is possible to accurately record the history of Israel using a single word to identify God. Yet, despite this fact, Deuteronomy unnecessarily uses three different words to identify God.
After reading the New Testament, God is revealed as physically manifesting His work through His Son and His Spirit while at the same time remaining God. With Deuteronomy in mind one could say there are two distinctly individual aspects, Son and Spirit which are singular, and another which involves Father, Son, and Spirit which is plural. The same pattern as Deuteronomy’s Vorlage.
Is the Trinity, or the "tripleness" of God the best explanation for the use of el, ĕlôha, and ĕlōhîm in Deuteronomy? If not, what is a better explanation for the unnecessary and intentional uses of three different terms for God?
Philip Williams
It seems to be a Binity!
John Kissinger
My response to Philip Williams who is both wrong and heretical specifically if Calvinism were true we should actually be able to have expected that when Jesus gave the great commission he would have included your explanation in his own words like ‘because you cannot know who is elect and who is made for destruction, so you must share the gospel with the elect and the dogs alike’ or something to that effect, because this is a kind of obvious question big deal kind of question Jesus would have know should come up if Calvinism is true. If Wesleyenism is true however, then we should expect Jesus would have given the great commission phrased exactly as he did.
Dr. Vinny Hudson
The claims made in the article regarding the composition of Deuteronomy and the use of different terms for God are misleading and fail to consider established theological understanding. The Documentary Hypothesis, while widely discussed, is not universally accepted, as highlighted by Pew Research, which shows that many scholars believe in a more unified authorship (Pew Research Center). The argument that the use of ‘el’, ‘ĕlôha’, and ‘ĕlōhîm’ introduces ambiguity overlooks the context in which these texts were written. It is critical to recognize that ancient Hebrew often utilized varied terms for God to express different attributes or aspects of His nature rather than creating confusion. For instance, ‘el’ can indicate strength or might, while ‘ĕlōhîm’ emphasizes majesty and sovereignty (Christianity.com). Furthermore, the assertion that other historical books only use ‘ĕlōhîm’ ignores the narrative purpose; Chronicles was written with a different theological emphasis post-exile. To claim this indicates a lack of clarity about God’s oneness misinterprets the intentions behind these texts. The Shema explicitly affirms God’s singularity despite using multiple names: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God ĕlōhîm is one LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4). This demonstrates a nuanced understanding of monotheism rather than an invitation for heretical interpretations like Gnostic theology. In conclusion, the text’s arguments are based on flawed assumptions and do not hold up against scholarly scrutiny.
Vernell
Philip Williams is both wrong and heretical in his fake theology claims.
1. Biblical Evidence of the Holy Spirit as a Person
Scripture presents the Holy Spirit not as an impersonal force, but as a distinct person:
John 14:26 – “The Helper, the Holy Spirit… he will teach you all things…”
Acts 13:2 – “The Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul…’”
These personal pronouns and actions imply a third person, not a mere extension of God.
2. The Great Commission Includes Three Persons
Matthew 28:19 – Jesus commands baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
If only two persons existed in the Godhead, the Spirit would not be included in such a foundational command.
3. Triadic Formulas in the New Testament
Several New Testament passages reference all three persons together:
2 Corinthians 13:14 – “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
These formulas suggest co-equality and co-presence of three divine persons.
4. Early Church Doctrine Defended the Trinity
The early ecumenical councils (Nicea 325 AD, Constantinople 381 AD) affirmed the full divinity and personhood of the Holy Spirit.
The Binity contradicts this well-established doctrinal consensus based on scriptural interpretation.
5. Limiting God’s Being
Claiming only two persons exist in the Godhead restricts God to a binary concept, whereas Scripture and experience point to the fullness and complexity of God’s self-revelation.
6. The Holy Spirit Has Divine Attributes
The Holy Spirit is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), omniscient (1 Corinthians 2:10-11), and involved in creation (Genesis 1:2).
These divine qualities support the Spirit’s deity and personhood, not simply a force from the Father or Son.
7. The Spirit Intercedes Like Christ
Romans 8:26-27 – The Spirit intercedes for the saints, much like Christ (Hebrews 7:25).
This is a distinct function performed by a personal being within the Godhead.
8. The Binity Ignores Pneumatology
A binarian view often neglects or minimizes the role of the Holy Spirit in sanctification, empowerment, and guidance, which are essential aspects of Christian life.
9. God’s Love and Community
The Trinity reflects perfect love within a divine community — Father loving the Son through the Spirit.
A Binity reduces that dynamic relationality, possibly undermining the very foundation of divine love (1 John 4:8).
10. The Spirit’s Role in Jesus’ Life
Jesus was conceived by the Spirit (Luke 1:35), led by the Spirit (Luke 4:1), and empowered by the Spirit for ministry.
A binarian view struggles to explain the distinct and active role of the Spirit in the earthly life of Christ.